CAFCASS Corporate Plan

Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they intend to publish the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service's corporate plan for 2003–06.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) has published its corporate plan for 2003 to 2006. The plan set out CAFCASS's key performance targets that I have set for CAFCASS in 2003–04. These targets are set out below:
	In public law no less than 80 per cent of cases should be allocated within 7 days.
	In private law cases at least 95 per cent of requests in the month should be allocated 10 weeks before the filing date.
	Carry out during 2003–04 a customer satisfaction survey to inform the development of a service improvement action plan.
	All new recruits to have received induction training within 16 weeks of joining.
	Sickness absence rate of no higher than 5 per cent (equivalent to 12 days per person per annum).
	Manage our funding to live within, subject to a 1 per cent tolerance limit, our resource allocation.
	During 2003–04 develop a demonstrably robust methodology for calculating unit costs and assess the baseline position, to inform specific key performance indicators from 2004–05. Copies of the corporate plan have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Further copies of the corporate plan may be obtained from CAFCASS.

European Convention on Human Rights, Protocol 7

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they intend to give effect to Rights Brought Home: The Human Rights Bill October 1997 (Cm 3782) by introducing necessary legislation enabling them to ratify Protocol 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights and to introduce legislation incorporating into United Kingdom law the provisions of Protocol 7 regarding: (a) procedural safeguards relating to the expulsion of aliens; (b) the right of appeal in criminal matters; (c) compensation for wrongful conviction; (d) the right not to be tried or punished twice; and (e) equality between spouses.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The matter is under consideration as part of the Government's interdepartmental review of international human rights instruments.

Ram Doctrine

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 24 March (WA 59–60), whether they will give the main examples of circumstances during the past five years in which they decided, in accordance with the Ram doctrine, that legislation was undesirable.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Occasions on which the Government have chosen not to legislate in order to provide statutory authority for an action that is in any event lawful at common law are necessarily difficult to categorise. No list is maintained.
	However, the Government recognise limits to the reliance that should be placed on non-statutory authority. For example, in accordance with Government Accounting, paragraph 11.3.33, departmental estimates should identify expenditure which rests on the sole authority of the appropriation Act. This is done by the use of symbols in the notes to the estimates. Departments are also required constantly to review continuing provision to ensure that it complies with the 1932 concordat (referred to in previous Written Answers) so far as possible.
	It follows that scrutiny of the estimates for each year should disclose the main cases in which expenditure rested on the appropriation Act, without other statutory provision.

HM Prison Brixton

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On what date it is now proposed to publish the report of HM Inspector of Prisons on the most recent inspection of HM Prison Brixton.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons expects shortly to finalise the report of the full announced inspection of HMP Brixton which took place in September 2002.
	This report has been delayed because the inspection team leader has subsequently been appointed as Governor of HMP Brixton, following informal, approaches made to him by the Prison Service before the inspection. The chief inspector was not informed of this before the inspection. The appointment of the team leader as governor of HMP Brixton was confirmed on 18 December 2002, while the report was still in draft and before it had been presented to Ministers or the Prison Service.
	To make clear the independence of the inspectorate from the service it inspects, the chief inspector was initially minded to make available only a summary of findings and order a re-inspection. Given the investment of time and resources by the whole inspection team and the establishment, and the overriding need to make public the work of the inspectorate, the chief inspector will make the whole record of the inspection publicly available. However, HMP Brixton will be re-inspected later this year and a report on that inspection published in the normal way.

Rehabilitation of Offenders

Baroness Goudie: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish their response to the report of the review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, Breaking the Circle.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The report of the review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, Breaking the Circle, was published in July 2002. The comments of consultees have now been fully considered and the Government's response is published today. Copies of response have been placed in the Library.

Immigration Detention Centres:Visiting Hours

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they consider that the visiting hours at all immigration detention centres should be the same; what changes have been made since this matter was drawn to their attention; and what further changes are planned.

Lord Filkin: It is not necessarily the case that the visiting hours at all immigration removal centres need to be identical. For example, individual centres service different operational priorities and, as such, will not have identical visiting requirements.
	There has recently been an extension of the visiting hours at Lindholme Immigration Removal Centre and we have undertaken to review the visiting hours there and at Haslar Immigration Removal Centre. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Immigration, Citizenship and Community Cohesion will write to the noble Lord when this review is complete.

Registration as a British Citizen

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they will take to regularise the position of persons who, after 30 April, are enabled to be registered as British citizens under Section 13 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 but who had been previously registered as British citizens as a result of administrative error.

Lord Filkin: There is no need to regularise the position of people who have been registered as British citizens as a result of administrative error. Subject to voluntary renunciation or, where there are grounds for this, deprivation of citizenship, such people will continue to be British citizens.
	A person who is not a British citizen but who is issued, in error, with a passport describing him as such does not thereby become a British citizen. From 30 April anybody in this position who meets the requirements for registration under Section 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981, as inserted by Section 13 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, will be entitled to registration as a British citizen.

Military Service: Compensation Arrangements

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the review by the Ministry of Defence of Armed Forces compensation arrangements, whether the standard of proof required to gain compensation for a medical condition caused or aggravated by military service is to change from reasonable doubt to balance of probabilities; and
	What percentage of currently successful claims for compensation for a medical condition caused or aggravated by military service would fail if the standard of proof required were changed from reasonable doubt to balance of probabilities; and
	What representations they have received from the ex-service community expressing concern about the proposal to change the standard of proof for compensation for a medical condition caused or aggravated by military service from reasonable doubt to balance of probabilities; and
	What arrangements are in place to ensure that claims for compensation for medical conditions caused or aggravated by military service which are accepted by the Veterans Agency for war pensions are also accepted by the Ministry of Defence; and whether such agreement between the two bodies is desirable; and
	Whether the disability awards given to ex-servicemen and women are commensurate with the levels of service given by those people in the course of their service careers.

Lord Bach: The Ministry of Defence currently provides compensation for death and disablement caused or aggravated by service under two schemes, the War Pension Scheme (WPS) and the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS). Each scheme operates under separate legislation and the standard of proof applied to claims under the two schemes is different.
	The War Pension Scheme was introduced in 1917 and its generous standard of proof reflects in particular the limits of medical understanding of the time. Claims may be made at any time after service release. Specifically, where a claim is made for a war pension within seven years of termination of service, the onus is wholly on the Secretary of State to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the disablement was not due to service. Where a claim is made more than seven years after termination, the onus rests on the claimant to raise a reasonable doubt by reliable evidence that the disablement is in fact due to service, the claimant receiving the benefit of any reasonable doubt.
	The attributable benefits elements of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme introduced attributable pensions in 1973. This applies to disablements leading to medical discharge; it considers claims against the balance of probabilities standard of proof in line with most other such schemes and the practice of civil courts. It places the onus of proof on the individual. We recognise that the use of different standards of proof for determining attributability under the two schemes is not well understood by claimants but it has not been considered appropriate so far to change these arrangements. This is an issue that has been considered within the current review of Armed Forces compensation arrangements. In March 2001, we published proposals for a new scheme based entirely on the balance of probabilities standard of proof. A number of respondents have expressed their concern that this would not be appropriate to the special status of the Armed Forces and the demands placed on them. This view has been particularly strongly represented by ex-service organisations. We have been in close consultation with these and other interested groups and will continue to work with the ex-service community in finalising the details of the new scheme. We expect to make a final decision on the broad design of a new scheme shortly.
	We do not hold information on how many WPS awards would be unsuccessful under the balance of probabilities standard of proof and this could be provided only at disproportionate effort and cost.
	Benefits awarded to medically discharged service personnel depend on whether the disablement is found attributable to service. The AFPS provides normal occupational pension scheme ill-health pensions (known as service invaliding pensions). Levels of these are based on rank and the length of service. Where a disablement is found attributable to service, both the WPS and AFPS provide attributable benefits related to rank and the medically assessed degree of disablement; in the case of the AFPS this usually results in enhanced pension benefits. These arrangements are also being considered in the light of wider good practice as part of our reviews of Armed Forces pension and compensation arrangements.

Iraqi Prisoners

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether captured Iraqi prisoners (including those classed as paramilitaries) will be treated by the coalition armed forces as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.

Lord Bach: The taking of prisoners of war is a legitimate means of reducing an enemy's strength and fighting capacity. Iraqi military personnel who fall into the hands of United Kingdom forces are prisoners of war and therefore will be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Paramilitary forces who are engaged in fighting coalition forces but are not members of the regular Iraqi armed forces will be treated as prisoners of war pending determination of their status. This status will depend on whether the group to which the person belongs can properly be regarded as part of the armed forces of Iraq and on whether he has distinguished himself from the civilian population by carrying his arms openly during and preceding any attack.

BSE: Over Thirty Month Scheme

Lord Varley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will announce the future of the over thirty month scheme (OTMS).

Lord Whitty: In 1996, at the height of the BSE crisis, the then government and European partners introduced a raft of measures aimed at protecting public health, supporting the market and restoring consumer confidence in beef.
	The OTMS was introduced to provide an outlet for cattle affected by the over thirty month rule, which bans beef from cattle more than 30 months old from being sold for human consumption. It is operated under EU Regulation 716/96 and farmers are paid for animals more than 30 months old which are slaughtered and destroyed. The scheme costs around £400 million a year, and more than £3.2 billion has been spent on it since 1996.
	The over thirty month rule is currently being reviewed by the Food Standards Agency; although no decisions have been taken it is possible that the review will lead to changes and that beef from older cattle will again be available for human consumption, subject to testing negative for BSE.
	This possibilty offers exciting new challenges and opportunities for the UK beef industry. It has led the Government to take a number of strategic actions to assist the industry in preparing for an orderly return to more normal market conditions.
	Our officials asked the European Commission to reduce the rates paid to farmers for animals entering the OTMS. On 28 March the EU Beef Management Committee unanimously agreed a proposal by the European Commission. The rates for cows will fall by 20 per cent and the rate for steers, heifers and bulls by 8 per cent. The new rates, which reflect changes to market prices elsewhere in the EU since 1997, are 0.64 euros per kg liveweight for cows and 0.83 euros per kg liveweight for other animals.
	The new rates will come into effect on 28 April and will apply to all animals slaughtered from that date. This action will ensure that taxpayers do not pay farmers prices well above the level that they could expect to get on the market and will help discourage the entry of cattle which may be slaughtered for beef following any changes to the rule.
	Our officials are setting up a core stakeholders group to explore with the industry the way forward if the rule is changed. They will be talking to the European Commission about how any disruption to the beef market can be minimised and any further changes to the scheme that may be required.
	The UK currently imports 30 per cent or around 290,000 tonnes of its domestic beef requirement. Changes to the rule are expected to allow large quantities of cow beef for manufacturing and some prime beef for retail use onto the domestic market, which will assist in reducing the import requirement and increasing the availability of both prime quality and cow beef for export. In order to capitalise on these increased supplies for export and to minimise domestic market distortion, my officials have alerted the European Commission to our intention to seek a change to the 30 month limit in the date based export scheme (DBES) in line with any change to the over thirty month rule.
	Our officials are also working with stakeholders to ensure that effective arrangements for BSE testing and removal of vertebral column will be in place.

Tobacco Advertising

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether public houses and licensed premises are exempt from the provisions of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 in respect of point of sale material such as beer mats, vending machines and display cabinets; and
	Whether the provision by tobacco companies of display cabinets, free of charge, to public houses and other licensed premises to encourage impulse buying of cigars is consistent with the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002.

Baroness Andrews: When fully in force the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 will provide a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising and promotion, with certain limited exceptions.
	Public houses and licensed premises are not exempt from the provisions of the Act. Any new measures to advertise or promote tobacco products in order to encourage impulse buying of cigars are not in the spirit of the Act.
	The Act provides for regulations to be made to control advertising wherever tobacco products are offered for sale. There is also provision in the Act to prohibit or restrict the use of tobacco branding on non-tobacco products or services (brandsharing). The Government have consulted on draft regulations governing point of sale (including in pubs) and brandsharing. The responses received during the consultation are being considered.
	Once the regulations are in final draft they will be notified to the European Commission under the Technical Standards Directive 98/34/EC, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC.

Railways: Rimini System

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How the Rimini system, which is applied by the railway authorities and relates to track worker safety, works.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The Rimini (risk minimisation) system is the colloquial name for Network Rail's company standard RT/LS/S/019, Protection of people working on or near the line, which came into force in December 2002.

Railways: Rimini System

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which body was responsible for introducing Rimini.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Rimini was introduced by Network Rail, the infrastructure maintenance controller, who as the health and safety dutyholder is legally responsible for ensuring that risks to trackside workers are reduced so far as is reasonably practicable.

Railways: Rimini System

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is estimated to be the total cost of Rimini, including both track maintenance and additional bus services provided, when trains are cancelled.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Network Rail estimates the implementation cost of Rimini will be £4 million. Network Rail does not think that Rimini will require additional bus services.

Railways: Rimini System

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many train services it is anticipated will be cancelled in a typical week when Rimini is implemented.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Network Rail does not anticipate that train services will be cancelled as a result of the implementation of the Rimini standard.

Railways: Rimini System

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many lives of track workers engaged in maintaining railway infrastructure it is estimated will be saved as a result of introducing Rimini.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Network Rail has not made an estimate of the effect of track worker fatalities as a result of introducing Rimini.

Railways: Rimini System

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the value attributed to lives saved by Rimini; and what is the value of a life saved by a typical road safety scheme.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Network Rail says that the business case for Rimini is not based around the value for preventing a fatality (VPF) but around the wider benefits to the industry from the improved planning, resourcing and quality of the work which the process drives. The average VPF used in the assessment of road safety schemes is £1.2 million.

Gatwick to London Rail Tickets

Viscount Astor: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they consider the lack of inter-available rail tickets at Gatwick Airport damaging to the tourism industry.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: No. As fares from Gatwick to London do not have to be inter-available, this allows the Gatwick Express, which provides a premium dedicated, high-speed travel link between central London and Gatwick Airport, to be able to set its own fares while other train operators serving the same route set theirs. This allows for competition on price between operators and provides a choice for passengers and tourists alike.